Lol, I guess satisfying is because amazon sells items at cost for growth, which is what exactly is killing this generation of middleclass... Can't make a dime off minimum wage, non profit run businesses, built to put the rest of the world in slavery.

But I guess when you complain, the fact amazon gives you anything you want, from free packages to free refunds, you get to earn satisfying opinions...

But be warned, they are in the red, and will sell their mothers to be the walmart of online wholesale.. and as the porn industry has shown... it will collapse faster than it was built...

Yeah we are probably better off without, then with. But while they are here, I'll pocket the savings when needed.

Lol, I guess satisfying is because amazon sells items at cost for growth, which is what exactly is killing this generation of middleclass... Can't make a dime off minimum wage, non profit run businesses, built to put the rest of the world in slavery.

But I guess when you complain, the fact amazon gives you anything you want, from free packages to free refunds, you get to earn satisfying opinions...

But be warned, they are in the red, and will sell their mothers to be the walmart of online wholesale.. and as the porn industry has shown... it will collapse faster than it was built...

Lol, I guess satisfying is because amazon sells items at cost for growth, which is what exactly is killing this generation of middleclass... Can't make a dime off minimum wage, non profit run businesses, built to put the rest of the world in slavery.

But I guess when you complain, the fact amazon gives you anything you want, from free packages to free refunds, you get to earn satisfying opinions...

But be warned, they are in the red, and will sell their mothers to be the walmart of online wholesale.. and as the porn industry has shown... it will collapse faster than it was built...

The writer of the article definitely has no love for Zuckerberg, but there is a bit of hypocrisy. I would generally side with Randi regarding the etiquette factor...but she, Facebook, and her brother in particular have become rich off of much more blatant disregard for any privacy, much less "human decency."

She'll take the money or even come up with more ways to rape any data she can from people, but then cites it as an offense against human decency when a relatively minor breach occurs to her own photo. Which one is it?She should try caring about people a bit.Shrugging,Ray

Wrong, Qub. She knows the deal and she's profited from the sketchy way FB does business then to turn around and not only bitch about it but so condescendingly? Fuck her and the horse she rode in on! The author is totally right to rip on her.

"There are two kinds of people in this world; people who love delis, and people you shouldn’t associate with.” - Damon Runyan

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Dec 27, 2012, 14:04:@SepharoI was about to mention that point as well (and someone else already mentioned it below). I think the main issue here is that this kind of thing happens all the time to all kinds of people. People have been complaining to FB about it for years. So it's easy for someone to be especially frustrated to hear it coming from her, especially claiming that it's just simple human decency after all the very non-decent things FB has done.

Edit: quotes seemed to be jacked at the moment

Yup. If this was important FB should have a "require permission before being shared" function, but even then there's the old right-click-save-as-repost thing.

A point of issue with that though, most sites will prevent you from doing that with clever scripting; Facebook doesn't even put THAT security measure up on their site.

Oh, and here's the main gist of the issue that has been glossed over by the article writer; The picture was tweeted out by the news reporter because they saw it on their news feed. They saw it on their news feed because they're Facebook friends with Marks' OTHER SISTER. The issue here is completely internal. Either internal to Facebook's shitty security settings, or internal to Zuck's own FAMILY not being able to make sense of Facebook's shitty security settings.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Dec 27, 2012, 14:04:@SepharoI was about to mention that point as well (and someone else already mentioned it below). I think the main issue here is that this kind of thing happens all the time to all kinds of people. People have been complaining to FB about it for years. So it's easy for someone to be especially frustrated to hear it coming from her, especially claiming that it's just simple human decency after all the very non-decent things FB has done.

Edit: quotes seemed to be jacked at the moment

Yup. If this was important FB should have a "require permission before being shared" function, but even then there's the old right-click-save-as-repost thing.

Sepharo:Quboid, I pretty much totally agree with your assessment but it doesn't take much effort to find out that Randi Zuckerberg was an executive at Facebook... CMO / marketing director. So the last sentences from both of your posts don't really add to your point.

I didn't know that, it's strange that the author didn't mention it. It makes it all the more odd that she made the mistake in the first place. I think my point still stands, it's a badly written article that looks to me to be written by someone who has a problem with Facebook and was looking for an excuse to attack.

The only suggestion my spell-checker has for Zuckerberg is Cocksucker. Google must be attacking Facebook too!!1

@SepharoI was about to mention that point as well (and someone else already mentioned it below). I think the main issue here is that this kind of thing happens all the time to all kinds of people. People have been complaining to FB about it for years. So it's easy for someone to be especially frustrated to hear it coming from her, especially claiming that it's just simple human decency after all the very non-decent things FB has done.

Edit: quotes seemed to be jacked at the moment

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Quboid, I pretty much totally agree with your assessment but it doesn't take much effort to find out that Randi Zuckerberg was an executive at Facebook... CMO / marketing director. So the last sentences from both of your posts don't really add to your point.

But then Randi took everything to a whole new level of mental when she summed the whole thing up with a tweet: "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency."

Yes, she said that: human decency. Because this dumb issue about her dumb photograph is that important.-------------

How loaded is that? A tweet is referred to as "a whole new level of mental", when all she does is state that it's human decency (emphasised by the author, as if this is some strange request) to ask before making public something that was shared privately. She was naive to not think of this happening, but she is at worst mistaken and in an ideal world, she'd be right.

Then her photograph is dismissed as "dumb", which is an irrelevant insult, and then again human decency is emphasised as if she's making a big deal out of it. It is loaded to make her look like she's ranting when she's not, and to make a comment about human decency make her look like a "first world problems" bitch who's comparing a shared photo to some grand human rights crusade like the civil war in Syria.

All this for someone who hasn't actually got anything to do with Facebook. Who is out of proportion here?

Quboid wrote on Dec 27, 2012, 11:25:All she said was "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency." - is that especially unreasonable? It's dumb to expect, but it doesn't warrant this attack piece.

I think he explains it pretty well in the article, but the entire point of Facebook is to do exactly what she's complaining about with the information that people provide on it. You post or like things, they use that information to sell things to you or sell your information to someone else to make a profit. Randi was the marketing director for Facebook until last year, when she used the buckets of money she made off of Facebook to start her own enterprises. She's not -just- Mark's sister, she's had her own hand in the service and did pretty well off of it.

So close on the heels of the Instagram thing where they announced that they own your pics you upload and can do with them as they please, for her to complain about human decency while living the big life off of the money made as part of Facebook is, I don't know, sort of idiotic and hypocritical.

I agree that she made a mistake, but I don't think it's a big mistake and I don't think it was a big reaction from her, which in turn makes it look to me like the author of that piece has a beef with Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg and was looking for a reason to reel off a list of complaints which she has nothing to do with.

If it was Mark who was complaining then I'd understand (and be laughing my ass off) but she's not Mark, she's nobody. She hasn't made a fortune from Facebook, as far as I know. I presume she's made $0 and has 0 input to Facebook's privacy policies - if she has significant number of shares then that's different but I've no reason to believe she does.

Quboid wrote on Dec 27, 2012, 11:25:All she said was "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency." - is that especially unreasonable? It's dumb to expect, but it doesn't warrant this attack piece.

I think he explains it pretty well in the article, but the entire point of Facebook is to do exactly what she's complaining about with the information that people provide on it. You post or like things, they use that information to sell things to you or sell your information to someone else to make a profit. Randi was the marketing director for Facebook until last year, when she used the buckets of money she made off of Facebook to start her own enterprises. She's not -just- Mark's sister, she's had her own hand in the service and did pretty well off of it.

So close on the heels of the Instagram thing where they announced that they own your pics you upload and can do with them as they please, for her to complain about human decency while living the big life off of the money made as part of Facebook is, I don't know, sort of idiotic and hypocritical.

I heard she sent a photo to a closed group on facebook and one of those people posted the pic (which was nothing bye the way) on twitter. In this case I'm not sure what this has to do much with Facebook security. That is someone taking a pic you sent them and then they sent it out to a public medium afterwards. Or that is how the news told me the story.

If it was a nude, then I can get the disappointment. But if the pic the news station showed is the pic that was sent, there was nothing that wouldn't bore you in a moment. A dime a dozen photo with no omg shock to it at all. I unfortunately have tons of photos of me on the net that I never approved, but was tagged and luckily I don't do anything that would be omg shocking. To me this is now standard operations on how photo's work.

All she said was "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency." - is that especially unreasonable?

If she posts it to a social network, isn't the expectation it will be viewed by others?

And if she's not happy with who all can view it (and it being shared "outside the group"), now she knows potentially how the average bookface user feels.

If she doesn't like it, maybe she shouldn't use the service. She agreed to the same terms as every other user. Or maybe she should put her brother in a headlock until they devise a way to keep this from happening again (one that would benefit ALL bookface users).

Bitch to your brother about it. I'm sure he'll act all uppity and pretend that there is absolutely nothing wrong, like he always does.

As for the Twitter RPG, that's classy. Just steal EVERYONE's artwork, then pretend you're a non-commercial, tiny project and so it's okay. Apparently stealing shit is fine if you're a poor, starving 'artist'?

Creston

Why is the she the bad guy here? I've little sympathy for her, or anyone, who puts something on social media and expects it to stay private but that article is just a list of reasons why they don't like Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook; they throw in an admission that Randi isn't Mark but then ignore this inconvenient fact without even explaining why it supposedly doesn't matter that they're different people.

All she said was "Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency." - is that especially unreasonable? It's dumb to expect, but it doesn't warrant this attack piece.

There seems to be a parallel with the Twitter RPG story, except the baddies have been switched around. Someone finds their content unexpected being used by someone else, isn't happy about it. They're not the same and I have sympathy for those whose work has been stolen, but why does some nobody's mild annoyance after making a small mistake deserve this smear?